376PD The multicenter, prospective observational study of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone as prophylaxis of chemotherapy- induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in moderately emetic chemotherapy (MEC) for solid tumors

Abstract Background: Of patients receiving moderate emetic risk chemotherapy (MEC), 30%–90% experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); however, the optimal antiemetic treatment remains controversial. Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, observational study of adults treated with MEC while receiving chemotherapy for various cancer types in Japan, the enrolled patients kept diaries documenting CINV. All participants received a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Results: Of the 400 patients enrolled from May 2013 to January 2015, 386 were eligible for evaluation. The median age was 64 (range, 26–84). The overall complete response (CR; no emetic events and no antiemetic measures) rate was 64%. The proportion of patients showing CR was low in the carboplatin (CBDCA)- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy groups, especially among women. We showed that the CR rates in men were high in the CBDCA (AUC5) + etoposide (ETP) (80%), capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) (78%), and CBDCA+ paclitaxel (PTX) groups for lung cancer (73%). Total control (TC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and no nausea) and complete control (CC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and less than mild nausea) were achieved in 51% and 61% of patients, respectively. Logistic regression analysis revealed history of motion sickness, history of pregnancy-associated vomiting and CBDCA-based chemotherapy as risk factors for CR and history of motion sickness and history of pregnancy-associated vomiting as risk factors for TC. Additional, Ages ≥65 years is an independent predictive factor for achieving TC. Conclusion: Our data showed that two antiemetics were insufficient to control CINV in patients receiving CBDCA- or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. However, two antiemetics may be sufficiently effective for elderly male patients receiving CBDCA (AUC5)+ETP, CBDCA+PTX for lung cancer, or CAPOX. Additionally, we consider that three antiemetics are necessary for women with colorectal cancer receiving CAPOX. Risk factor analysis related to CR showed that CINV prophylaxis in patients treated with CBDCA-based chemotherapy was generally supportive of the guideline-recommended three antiemetics. However, the control of nausea in patients receiving non-CBDCA-based chemotherapy is a key point to note. The further individualization of antiemetic regimens for patients receiving MEC based on both types of chemotherapy regimens and sex is needed.

Download Full-text

5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during moderately emetic chemotherapy for solid tumors: a multicenter, prospective, observational study

BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology ◽

10.1186/s40360-020-00445-y ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Reiko Matsui ◽

Kenichi Suzuki ◽

Tomomi Takiguchi ◽

Makoto Nishio ◽

Takeshi Koike ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Lung Cancer ◽

Observational Study ◽

Receptor Antagonist ◽

Motion Sickness ◽

Prospective Observational Study ◽

Nausea And Vomiting ◽

Complete Control ◽

History Of ◽

Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

Abstract Background Of patients receiving moderate emetic risk chemotherapy (MEC), 30–90% experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); however, the optimal antiemetic treatment remains controversial. Methods In this multicenter, prospective, observational study of adults treated with MEC while receiving chemotherapy for various cancer types in Japan, the enrolled patients kept diaries documenting CINV. All participants received a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Results Of the 400 patients enrolled from May 2013 to January 2015, 386 were eligible for evaluation. The median age was 64 (range, 26–84). The overall complete response (CR; no emetic events and no antiemetic measures) rate was 64%. The proportion of patients showing CR was low in the carboplatin (CBDCA)- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy groups, especially among women. We showed that the CR rates in men were high in the CBDCA (AUC5) + etoposide (ETP) (80%), capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) (78%), and CBDCA+ paclitaxel (PTX) groups for lung cancer (73%). Total control (TC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and no nausea) and complete control (CC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and less than mild nausea) were achieved in 51 and 61% of patients, respectively. Logistic regression analysis revealed history of motion sickness, history of pregnancy-associated vomiting and CBDCA-based chemotherapy as risk factors for CR and history of motion sickness and history of pregnancy-associated vomiting as risk factors for TC. Additional, Ages ≥65 years is an independent predictive factor for achieving TC. Conclusions Our data showed that two antiemetics were insufficient to control CINV in patients receiving CBDCA- or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. However, two antiemetics may be sufficiently effective for elderly male patients receiving CBDCA (AUC5) + ETP, CBDCA+PTX for lung cancer, or CAPOX. Additionally, we consider that three antiemetics are necessary for women with colorectal cancer receiving CAPOX. Risk factor analysis related to CR showed that CINV prophylaxis in patients treated with CBDCA-based chemotherapy was generally supportive of the guideline-recommended three antiemetics. However, the control of nausea in patients receiving non-CBDCA-based chemotherapy is a key point to note. The further individualization of antiemetic regimens for patients receiving MEC based on both types of chemotherapy regimens and sex is needed.

Download Full-text

5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 Receptor Antagonist and Dexamethasone as Prophylaxis for Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting during Moderately Emetic Chemotherapy for Solid Tumors: A Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-16203/v3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Reiko Matsui ◽

Kenichi Suzuki ◽

Tomomi Takiguchi ◽

Makoto Nishio ◽

Takeshi Koike ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Lung Cancer ◽

Observational Study ◽

Receptor Antagonist ◽

Motion Sickness ◽

Prospective Observational Study ◽

Nausea And Vomiting ◽

Complete Control ◽

History Of ◽

Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

Abstract Background: Of patients receiving moderate emetic risk chemotherapy (MEC), 30%–90% experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); however, the optimal antiemetic treatment remains controversial.Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, observational study of adults treated with MEC while receiving chemotherapy for various cancer types in Japan, the enrolled patients kept diaries documenting CINV. All participants received a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone.Results: Of the 400 patients enrolled from May 2013 to January 2015, 386 were eligible for evaluation. The median age was 64 (range, 26–84). The overall complete response (CR; no emetic events and no antiemetic measures) rate was 64%. The proportion of patients showing CR was low in the carboplatin (CBDCA)- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy groups, especially among women. We showed that the CR rates in men were high in the CBDCA (AUC5) + etoposide (ETP) (80%), capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) (78%), and CBDCA+ paclitaxel (PTX) groups for lung cancer (73%). Total control (TC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and no nausea) and complete control (CC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and less than mild nausea) were achieved in 51% and 61% of patients, respectively. Logistic regression analysis revealed history of motion sickness, history of pregnancy-associated vomiting and CBDCA-based chemotherapy as risk factors for CR and history of motion sickness and history of pregnancy-associated vomiting as risk factors for TC. Additional, Ages ≥65 years is an independent predictive factor for achieving TC.Conclusion: Our data showed that two antiemetics were insufficient to control CINV in patients receiving CBDCA- or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. However, two antiemetics may be sufficiently effective for elderly male patients receiving CBDCA (AUC5)+ETP, CBDCA+PTX for lung cancer, or CAPOX. Additionally, we consider that three antiemetics are necessary for women with colorectal cancer receiving CAPOX. Risk factor analysis related to CR showed that CINV prophylaxis in patients treated with CBDCA-based chemotherapy was generally supportive of the guideline-recommended three antiemetics. However, the control of nausea in patients receiving non-CBDCA-based chemotherapy is a key point to note. The further individualization of antiemetic regimens for patients receiving MEC based on both types of chemotherapy regimens and sex is needed.

Download Full-text

5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 Receptor Antagonist and Dexamethasone as Prophylaxis for Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting during Moderately Emetic Chemotherapy for Solid Tumors: A Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-16203/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Reiko Matsui ◽

Kenichi Suzuki ◽

Tomomi Takiguchi ◽

Makoto Nishio ◽

Takeshi Koike ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Lung Cancer ◽

Observational Study ◽

Receptor Antagonist ◽

Prospective Observational Study ◽

Complete Response ◽

Nausea And Vomiting ◽

Complete Control ◽

History Of ◽

Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

Abstract Background Patients receiving moderate emetic risk chemotherapy (MEC) occurs chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in 30–90%, however the optimal antiemetic treatment remains controversial. Methods In this multicenter, prospective, observational study of adults treated with MEC for various cancer types in Japan, We enrolled patients kept diaries documenting CINV. All participants received a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist(5HT3RAs) and dexamethasone. We assessed various possible risk factors for complete response (CR; no emetic events and no antiemetic measures), total control (TC; no emetic events , no antiemetic measures and no nausea) and complete control (CC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures and less than mild nausea) by univariate and multivariate analysis. Results Of the 400 patients enrolled from May 2013 to January 2015, 386 were eligible for evaluation. The overall CR rate was 64%, CBDCA-based chemotherapy and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy were particularly low. However, we showed that the CR rates in men were high in CBDCA(AUC5)＋ETP (80%), CapeOX (78%) and CBDCA+PTX for lung cancer(73% ). Emesis occurred significantly more women (30%) than men (16%) of patients overall. TC and CC were achieved by 51% and 61% of patients. Logistic regression analysis revealed that age <65 years and history of motion sickness or pregnancy-associated vomiting were risk factors for nausea and being women for vomiting. Conclusions Our data support triplet regimen including NK1 receptor antagonist with woman receiving CBDCA-based chemotherapy or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. However, it became clear that two antiemetics for men received CBDCA(AUC5)＋ETP, CBDCA＋PTX for lung cancer and CAPOX may be sufficiently effective. Further individualization of antiemetic regimens for patients receiving MEC on the basis of both type of chemotherapy regimen and sex is needed.

Download Full-text

5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 Receptor Antagonist and Dexamethasone as Prophylaxis for Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting during Moderately Emetic Chemotherapy for Solid Tumors: A Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-16203/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Reiko Matsui ◽

Kenichi Suzuki ◽

Tomomi Takiguchi ◽

Makoto Nishio ◽

Takeshi Koike ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Lung Cancer ◽

Observational Study ◽

Receptor Antagonist ◽

Motion Sickness ◽

Prospective Observational Study ◽

Nausea And Vomiting ◽

History Of ◽

Independent Risk Factors ◽

Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

Abstract Background: Of patients receiving moderate emetic risk chemotherapy (MEC), 30%–90% experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); however, the optimal antiemetic treatment remains controversial. Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, observational study of adults treated with MEC while receiving chemotherapy for various cancer types in Japan, the enrolled patients kept diaries documenting CINV. All participants received a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Results: Of the 400 patients enrolled from May 2013 to January 2015, 386 were eligible for evaluation. The median age was 64 (range, 26–84). The overall complete response (CR; no emetic events and no antiemetic measures) rate was 64%. The proportion of patients showing CR was low in the carboplatin (CBDCA)- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy groups, especially among women. We showed that the CR rates in men were high in the CBDCA (AUC5) + etoposide (ETP) (80%), capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) (78%), and CBDCA+ paclitaxel (PTX) groups for lung cancer (73%). Total control (TC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and no nausea) and complete control (CC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and less than mild nausea) were achieved in 51% and 61% of patients, respectively. Logistic regression analysis revealed that no history of motion sickness, no history of pregnancy-associated vomiting, and non-CBDCA-based chemotherapy are independent risk factors for CR, whereas no history of motion sickness and no history of pregnancy-associated vomiting are independent risk factors for TC. Conclusion: Our data showed that two antiemetics were insufficient to control CINV in patients receiving CBDCA- or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. However, two antiemetics may be sufficiently effective for elderly male patients receiving CBDCA (AUC5)+ETP, CBDCA+PTX for lung cancer, or CAPOX. Additionally, we consider that three antiemetics are necessary for women with colorectal cancer receiving CAPOX. Risk factor analysis related to CR showed that CINV prophylaxis in patients treated with CBDCA-based chemotherapy was generally supportive of the guideline-recommended three antiemetics. However, the control of nausea in patients receiving non-CBDCA-based chemotherapy is a key point to note. The further individualization of antiemetic regimens for patients receiving MEC based on both types of chemotherapy regimens and sex is needed.

Download Full-text

5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 Receptor Antagonist and Dexamethasone as Prophylaxis for Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting during Moderately Emetic Chemotherapy for Solid Tumors: A Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-16203/v5 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Reiko Matsui ◽

Kenichi Suzuki ◽

Tomomi Takiguchi ◽

Makoto Nishio ◽

Takeshi Koike ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Lung Cancer ◽

Observational Study ◽

Receptor Antagonist ◽

Motion Sickness ◽

Prospective Observational Study ◽

Nausea And Vomiting ◽

Complete Control ◽

History Of ◽

Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

Abstract Background: Of patients receiving moderate emetic risk chemotherapy (MEC), 30%–90% experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); however, the optimal antiemetic treatment remains controversial. Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, observational study of adults treated with MEC while receiving chemotherapy for various cancer types in Japan, the enrolled patients kept diaries documenting CINV. All participants received a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Results: Of the 400 patients enrolled from May 2013 to January 2015, 386 were eligible for evaluation. The median age was 64 (range, 26–84). The overall complete response (CR; no emetic events and no antiemetic measures) rate was 64%. The proportion of patients showing CR was low in the carboplatin (CBDCA)- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy groups, especially among women. We showed that the CR rates in men were high in the CBDCA (AUC5) + etoposide (ETP) (80%), capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) (78%), and CBDCA+ paclitaxel (PTX) groups for lung cancer (73%). Total control (TC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and no nausea) and complete control (CC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and less than mild nausea) were achieved in 51% and 61% of patients, respectively. Logistic regression analysis revealed history of motion sickness, history of pregnancy-associated vomiting and CBDCA-based chemotherapy as risk factors for CR and history of motion sickness and history of pregnancy-associated vomiting as risk factors for TC. Additional, Ages ≥65 years is an independent predictive factor for achieving TC. Conclusion: Our data showed that two antiemetics were insufficient to control CINV in patients receiving CBDCA- or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. However, two antiemetics may be sufficiently effective for elderly male patients receiving CBDCA (AUC5)+ETP, CBDCA+PTX for lung cancer, or CAPOX. Additionally, we consider that three antiemetics are necessary for women with colorectal cancer receiving CAPOX. Risk factor analysis related to CR showed that CINV prophylaxis in patients treated with CBDCA-based chemotherapy was generally supportive of the guideline-recommended three antiemetics. However, the control of nausea in patients receiving non-CBDCA-based chemotherapy is a key point to note. The further individualization of antiemetic regimens for patients receiving MEC based on both types of chemotherapy regimens and sex is needed.

Download Full-text

Prospective observational study on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for colorectal cancer patients by the CINV study group of Japan.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2014.32.3_suppl.652 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽

pp. 652-652

Author(s):

Yuji Miyamoto ◽

Hideo Baba ◽

Yasushi Tsuji ◽

Ayako Doi ◽

Koji Takeda ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Observational Study ◽

Receptor Antagonist ◽

Motion Sickness ◽

Prospective Observational Study ◽

Incidence Rates ◽

Nausea And Vomiting ◽

Acute Nausea ◽

Delayed Nausea ◽

Acute Cinv

652 Background: The aim of this study is to investigate the incidence of Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) among moderately emetogenic chemotherapy-naive patients with colorectal cancer. We also assessed whether the medical staff accurately recognized the incidence of CINV in their own practices. Methods: A prospective observational study of patients receiving the first cycle of oxaliplatin or irinotecan-based chemotherapy was performed. A 7-day diary for CINV was provided to the patients prior to chemotherapy to record daily incidence of CINV. Observed incidence rates of acute (day1) and delayed (days 2-7) CINV were compared with medical staff's predictions. Results: A total of 191 patients (110 males and 81 females) were registered during the period from April 2011 to December 2012. All patients were treated with oxaliplatin-based (n = 175) or irinotecan-based chemotherapy (n = 16). Acute vomiting was observed in 4 patients (2.1%), while delayed vomiting was observed in 19 patients (10.0%). Acute nausea occurred in 14 patients (7.3%), while 63 patients (33%) were affected by delayed nausea. Irinotecan significantly induced acute nausea more frequently than oxaliplatin did (p = 0.019). The presence of motion sickness was significantly associated with the incidence of acute nausea (p < 0.001) and vomiting (p = 0.003). Antiemetics were given along the guideline to all patients. 58 patients were administered a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist. Patients with NK-1 receptor antagonist showed significantly less incidence of delayed vomiting than patients without one (3% vs 13%, p = 0.048). 30 patients (15.7%) required rescue antiemetics. The staff had estimated the incidence of acute CINV in 91 patients (47.6%). However, only 14 patients (7.3%) really experienced acute CINV. Conclusions: CINV seems to be controllable with appropriate management, but delayed CINV still remains an important problem to be targeted. The presence of motion sickness should be affected by efficient antiemetic management. The extent of CINV in this patient group seems to be overestimated.

Download Full-text